ITC judge strikes last remaining Motorola patent claim against Apple

Google-rola was undone by its own earlier patent.

An administrative law judge at the International Trade Commission has ruled that Apple does not infringe the last remaining Motorola Mobility (now owned by Google) patent under investigation from a complaint filed over two years ago. It appears that an earlier Motorola patent rendered the patent-in-suit, which covers a sensor to prevent accidental touchscreen input, invalid for obviousness.

Motorola first filed its ITC complaint against Apple in October 2010, part of a preemptive strike against what Motorola saw as an impending legal battle with Apple over smartphone patents. The initial determination in April of this year by Administrative Law Judge Thomas Pender found that Apple did infringe a patent related to 3G wireless standards but not did not infringe any others, including US Patent No. 6,246,862, "Sensor controlled user interface for portable communication device." Pender had originally ruled that claim 1 of that patent was indefinite and therefore invalid.

On Motorola's request, a six-person ITC panel reviewed the initial determination over the summer. The panel reversed Pender's decision on infringement of the 3G-related patent as well as his ruling that claim 1 of the '862 patent was indefinite. The case was then remanded to reconsider the evidence concerning the '862 patent.

The remanded initial determination handed down this week found that the '862 patent was invalid due to prior art—in fact, an earlier Motorola patent had similar claims. As noted by FOSS Patents, the prior art had not previously been considered as Pender had ruled the initial claim indefinite and therefore invalid.

Pender's initial determination may yet still be reviewed by an ITC panel before it is made final. However, given the extensive review of the case already, the ITC may decline further review and enter the judgement as final.

Moto was close to dead, and for sale when google bought them. Nothing has changed, if anything they are closer to death than they were before Eric the mole and company wasted millions on a badly mismanaged disaster of a company. Stick a fork in them they are done.

Wait... A patent for using a proximity sensor to prevent accidental input is "invalid for obviousness" but rounded rectangle is valid because it's so novel and has never been done before?!?!?Gah! The patent system needs to die in a fire. Use the lawyers as kindling, please.

Google has said repeatedly, that they bought Motorola for the patents. They've said this over and again, even just recently. They would have been crazy to have spent $12.5 billion on them for their phones. Even if that was a major consideration, it would have been crazy. Their phones have been losing money for some time, and the situation is getting worse.

They were sold a bill of goods over the patents, and Google parted with all that cash because they were afraid someone else might put a bid in otherwise. From what I can see, most of those 17,000 patents have little to do with what they are interested in. Most of the ones that do are becoming dated in technology, and many of the rest have little time left. They only seem to have won a couple of cases, and not entirely, as they wanted injunctions, and they weren't granted them. This is all a lot of trouble for a few SEP's, for which they can't demand much anyway, and they must license to their competitors, like it or not.

Wait... A patent for using a proximity sensor to prevent accidental input is "invalid for obviousness" but rounded rectangle is valid because it's so novel and has never been done before?!?!?Gah! The patent system needs to die in a fire. Use the lawyers as kindling, please.

What you're missing is:

1. One of them you mentioned is a patent2. One of them you mentioned is not a patent.

Wait... A patent for using a proximity sensor to prevent accidental input is "invalid for obviousness" but rounded rectangle is valid because it's so novel and has never been done before?!?!?Gah! The patent system needs to die in a fire. Use the lawyers as kindling, please.

There is no obviousness standard for design patents. Perhaps you wouldn't feel so outraged if you actually knew what you were talking about.

Wait... A patent for using a proximity sensor to prevent accidental input is "invalid for obviousness" but rounded rectangle is valid because it's so novel and has never been done before?!?!?Gah! The patent system needs to die in a fire. Use the lawyers as kindling, please.

The reason it doesn't make sense is that your entire premise is wrong and you are attacking a straw man that you invented or took from someone else.

Motorola was not acquired to be a sword, it was acquired to be a shield. Google's mobile patent portfolio was virtually nil. They can now produce their own Android handsets under an umbrella that protects them from competitor lawsuits. Countersuit-wise, their business strategies to date demonstrates that they aren't going to be an injunctive relief seeking type of company anyway but, instead will be happy with monetary damages associated with FRAND.

Google only wanted to acquire exclusive patents which it could use as weapons.

Google probably believed that they could gain more by fighting to some sort of truce than they would by building walls.. but you can’t say they were pacifists..

Motorola's suit was filed before Google's acquisition wasn't it? Could be wrong about that, but I remember hearing about this suit long before I remember hearing about Google buying Motorola. That and Motorola is also being allowed to conduct themselves as they would with little oversight from Google. The end result either way is that this was a move initiated my remaining Moto staff, not Google. It looks more like Motorola was just trying to flex it's muscles to show Google, "See, look how big and strong I am! We're a good boy aren't we Dad?" But they overstepped their bounds and are gonna get their peepee slapped.

Also, didn't Google turn down joining in any patent pools long before the whole rapid fire lawsuit round-table began? They probably did think they could just fight for some kind of truce, or at least that everything could be worked out civilly. Apparently, they were just wrong is all.

Google have nearly as many patents as Apple, including plenty of design patents.

Trust me, they're not the babe in the woods that they make themselves out to be. Their "We honestly didn't know you could patent rounded rectangles" line is utter bullshit. They have patents on squared rectangles dating back at least a decade. How fucking innovative is that?